Debate: How God Can Create Something From Nothing - (A Response To GreyLorn)

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes! Notice further that the problems facing the empirical method of hypothesis-formation, testing, and warrant come down to the rather simplistic rendering of the following highly-suspect way of proceeding which scientists recognize as fundamental to all scientific practice and hence deeply problematic:
.

Are you saying that we should cast doubt on the theories of science.?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Albert,

On another thread you claimed to be a scientist and implied that you are an academic. No scientist or academic would regard youtube as a reputable source. Just as I don’t allow students to use wiki as a source, nor do I allow them to base work on youtube clips. Seriously, this is foolish behaviour and you would do well to take advice and do some serious reading. You’ve been given lots of suggestions.

Oh, I don’t know, youtube has some great clips that actually teach science.

From elementary:
youtube.com/watch?v=d26AhcKeEbE

to more advance concepts:
youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

 

[Syntax]

Are you saying that we should cast doubt on the theories of science.?

Yes. But I am not proposing to abandon science, of course. I am only pointing out that there is very good reason to think scientific methodologies are not as reliable as some people have too often taken them to be. And we have ample reason for thinking this as I’ve already mentioned above.

 

[Syntax]

Oh, I don’t know, youtube has some great clips that actually teach science.

From elementary:
youtube.com/watch?v=d26AhcKeEbE

to more advance concepts:
youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

Sure, but the problem is that they are still only surveys of the issues with which scientists deal, not an in depth look. So you’re not exactly going to acquire a deeper understanding of the actual issues facing scientific methodologies in principle.

 

[twinc]

Sorry Albert,
Does it strike you as curious that I’ve read more source material on evolution than you ever will, and that HelenaMT takes the time to read and objectively analyze the third-order trash you point her to, while you devote your self to explaining why you don’t need to read anything?

I notice that you replied to my previous note without bothering to actually read any content, at least not that I could tell by your reply. The ability and willingness to read, and intelligently consider the perused material, is one thing I insist upon from anyone with whom I attempt to exchange ideas.

Therefore you will understand why this is my final communication with you.

what all this has to do with the original topic is beyond me.What it does do is show that there is much jangling and wrangling and upmanship and sadly to be the cause of division among the children of the Church as predicted by Pius X - whilst Pius XII,as if also seeing and realising this recommended and advised that the experts and specialists in both the disciplines of science and theology should be consulted especially now after years of research and discussion since Humani Generis in 1950.So instead of accepting individual opinions and conclusions let us do just that - try www.kolbecenter.org and links and www.answersingenesis.org and links - twinc

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sure, but the problem is that they are still only surveys of the issues with which scientists deal, not an in depth look. So you’re not exactly going to acquire a deeper understanding of the actual issues facing scientific methodologies in principle.

A person with an understanding of an issue can make their argument via visual media. It’s been done, very successfully.

 

[Syntax]

A person with an understanding of an issue can make their argument via visual media. It’s been done, very successfully.

…but only up to a very limited extent. I can vouche for this through my own experience going from novice to professional in philosophy. I am not trying to be elitist about this. I am only stating my personal experience. And I know any PhD student would agree with me no matter what field he/she is in. There exists a big jump in levels of understanding, comprehension, and thoroughness that no video will give you unless you actually apply your own intellectual rigor, discuss these complex issues non-stop with experts in the field, and employ your own disciplined energy into trying to find a solution to various problems. For instance, I know what “e=mcc” means, and I could be successful in explaining to you its proper place within the wider context of Einstein’s General/Special Theories of Relativity, but quite frankly, I don’t understand it at all. And many professors who teach Einstein’s theory have a difficult time grasping this law too. So even though metaphor and analogy help in grasping a difficult concept, further successful application of that concept in other areas will be impossible without a detailed understanding of its various consequences and implications.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…but only up to a very limited extent. I can vouche for this through my own experience going from novice to professional in philosophy. I am not trying to be elitist about this

I don’t worry about elitist. I’m in the “don’t care” about those sort of social classifications. They have no meaning.

am only stating my personal experience. And I know any PhD student would agree with me no matter what field he/she is in. There exists a big jump in levels of understanding, comprehension, and thoroughness that no video will give you unless you actually apply your own intellectual rigor, discuss these complex issues non-stop with experts in the field, and employ your own disciplined energy into trying to find a solution to various problems.

Yes, i know this too. I’m fairly certain an internet forum is not at this level of dialogue. I think bringing in visual media can help clarify a person’s argument, if used well. In my experience it is also used in the sort of dialogue you are talking about, usually in form of a Powerpoint presentation (from hell). :yawn:

 

[greylorn]

Yes! Notice further that the problems facing the empirical method of hypothesis-formation, testing, and warrant come down to the rather simplistic rendering of the following highly-suspect way of proceeding which scientists recognize as fundamental to all scientific practice and hence deeply problematic:

(1) If my hypothesis is true, warranted, or justified, then I will obserive X, Y, and Z.
(2) I do observe X, Y, and Z.
(3) Therefore, my hypothesis is true, warranted, or justified.

or

(1) If H, then O
(2) O
(3) Therefore, H

But this is committing the **logicall fallacy **of affirming the consequent. I know most scientists and philosophers will recognize this, which is precisely the reason for their concerns about the scientific method. Truly, this IS cause for concern since this is the source of all the difficulties I listed above.

Personally, I see no particular problem with either description of how science relates theory and observation. I regard these descriptions as simple (which is good) but find no reason to regard them as “simplistic,” as you label them.

Perhaps you are correct that most scientists and philosophers will recognize the principle you’ve named, but not described: “affirming the consequent.” I’m certain that when asked if they understand that concept, they will reply yes even if they’ve never heard of it before, because it has the sound of something they ought to know about.

Luckily, although I know some physics and a smattering of philosophy (having actually written and published on the subject) I’ve never heard of the notion you referenced and cannot determine what it means from the context you’ve supplied. Chances are that I’m not alone in that respect.

Posters who reference arcane concepts without describing them are often trying to give their readers a word job, promoting themselves and their education in the process. You would not be doing that. Therefore it behooves you to give us all a detailed, down-to-earth presentation of what “affirming the consequent” means, and why you regard it as a logical fallacy.

The most valid presentation you can offer will include your personal understanding, opinions, and ideas, distilled into plain language. Using other esoteric terminology to explain one esoteric term would be another level of obfuscation, which has no place in an honest dialogue. Quoting noteworthy philosophers would be trying to convince by name-dropping. I can comfortably speak for at least two other CAF members by declaring that we are looking for understanding, not intellectual pretentiousness.

 

[Syntax]

Posters who reference arcane concepts without describing them are often trying to give their readers a word job, promoting themselves and their education in the process. You would not be doing that. Therefore it behooves you to give us all a detailed, down-to-earth presentation of what “affirming the consequent” means, and why you regard it as a logical fallacy.

The most valid presentation you can offer will include your personal understanding, opinions, and ideas, distilled into plain language. Using other esoteric terminology to explain one esoteric term would be another level of obfuscation, which has no place in an honest dialogue. Quoting noteworthy philosophers would be trying to convince by name-dropping. I can comfortably speak for at least two other CAF members by declaring that we are looking for understanding, not intellectual pretentiousness.

I take offense to that. I had no intentions of name dropping so as to be pretentious or to offer arguments by appeals to authority. If you paid attention to the context of my remarks, I was suggesting that AlbertBall pick up these other thinkers on this subject so as to rid himself of what appeared to be his holding a very naive view on scientific methodology. There is nothing wrong with suggesting other authors in the context of a discussion like this. You yourself asked me for suggestions. So many of the rest of you take all the liberty in the world to make bold philosophical claims without ever backing them up and for which I let slide time and again, so I suggest you get off your intellectual moral high-ground before you criticize my intentions. I have no obligations to satisfy every aspect of your intellectual curiosity here. Nor am I restricted from using my own philosophical terminology as you implicitly suggest I ought to do.

Perhaps you are correct that most scientists and philosophers will recognize the principle you’ve named, but not described: “affirming the consequent.” I’m certain that when asked if they understand that concept, they will reply yes even if they’ve never heard of it before, because it has the sound of something they ought to know about.

What more do you want me to say? If you don’t understand that this logical structure of illicitly affirming the consequent is not at the foundation of all scientific methodological practice, then you’re just hiding your head in the sand. This fallacy doesn’t mean all scientific practice is therefore completely unwarranted. But like I already said, it is due to this very structure that the relationship between data a theory gives rise to all the problems I mentioned in my other post.

As a philosopher, and not a scientist, I am concerned with the logical relationships between theory-laden statements and observation statements, for instance, and what consequences this may have for the warranted ascertainibility of our practices of confirmation as a whole. I can’t give you explicit scientific instances, but I can give you logical deductions and rational analyses of these logical relationships with rather trite examples of my own. And further, just because I am not scientist doesn’t mean I don’t understand how scientific methodology generally functions, nor does that bar me from evaluating its more general epistemic consequences for theories of justification and truth.

Personally, I see no particular problem with either description of how science relates theory and observation. I regard these descriptions as simple (which is good) but find no reason to regard them as “simplistic,” as you label them.

You misinterpreted me. I was clearly saying my own characterization was rather simplistic, not that actual concrete confirmatory practices were simplistic enterprises undertaken as a whole. But I do believe the relationship between hypotheses and observation does essentially have this structure at its foundation. It should be intuitively obvious.

Luckily, although I know some physics and a smattering of philosophy (having actually written and published on the subject) I’ve never heard of the notion you referenced and cannot determine what it means from the context you’ve supplied. Chances are that I’m not alone in that respect…

But this is partly how confirmation and testing works in science. Hypotheses are formed, predictions are logically deduced from those hypotheses, and then the test is performed. I understand this is a rather complicated process involving revising background assumptions and adjusting other parameters so as to emilinate variability in error. But however many times you repeat the same experiment over and over again, adjusting this or that variable, the logical structure of confirmation and falsifiability is always the same. So I don’t see how anything I am saying is counterintuitive or not that obvious

 

[greylorn]

What more do you want me to say? If you don’t understand that this logical structure of illicitly affirming the consequent is not at the foundation of all scientific methodological practice, then you’re just hiding your head in the sand. This fallacy doesn’t mean all scientific practice is therefore completely unwarranted. But like I already said, it is due to this very structure that the relationship between data a theory gives rise to all the problems I mentioned in my other post.

I apologize for being insufficiently clear. I request a clear explanation from you, in your own words, first; of the meaning of "affirming the consequent. I expect this be be delivered without a porridge of philosophers’ jargon, and without internet links to other people’s explanations. This should not be too tough. Just pretend that you had to teach the concepts to a class of intelligent students who signed up for your class to learn things which they did not know, and wanted to know. .

Secondly, I want an explanation of why the principle is not logical, logically flawed, “illicit,” or in some other way unsuitable for mental consumption. Again, please— clearly and in your own words.

So far, all you’ve offered is a philosophical snow job. Surely, your advanced education suggests that you can accomplish a straightforward explanation.

 

[greylorn]

… I know what “e=mcc” means, and I could be successful in explaining to you its proper place within the wider context of Einstein’s General/Special Theories of Relativity, but quite frankly, I don’t understand it at all.

If you don’t understand it, how could you possibly explain it in a larger, more complex context of which you are necessarily even more ignorant?

Is that how modern philosophers operate, with pretense and unwarranted assurances in the face of their own ignorance---- like politicians?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is that how modern philosophers operate, with pretense and unwarranted assurances in the face of their own ignorance---- like politicians?

they dont, you just dont know the difference. but now that you are being exposed to the philosophy of science, and see it has limits you didnt consider, youre getting in a huff.

so slow your roll, and suppose that you arent the only person on the planet who has a clue.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A person with an understanding of an issue can make their argument via visual media. It’s been done, very successfully.

Just take a look at the “photoshopped” pictures of polar bears in Al Gore’s movie.

All those little kids are irrevocably traumatized for life … by a bunch of fake visuals.

 

[Syntax]

I apologize for being insufficiently clear. I request a clear explanation from you, in your own words, first; of the meaning of "affirming the consequent. I expect this be be delivered without a porridge of philosophers’ jargon, and without internet links to other people’s explanations. This should not be too tough. Just pretend that you had to teach the concepts to a class of intelligent students who signed up for your class to learn things which they did not know, and wanted to know. Secondly, I want an explanation of why the principle is not logical, logically flawed, “illicit,” or in some other way unsuitable for mental consumption. Again, please— clearly and in your own words.

sheesh…I don’t have to pander to you any more than I do other people. You are essentially asking me to prove the rules of inference for **modus ponens **and modus tollens. Rather than bore you, the best way is to give an example. Here’s a demonstration: the first two arguments are valid. The latter two are invalid. You should subsequently see how affirimng the consequent is an illicit inference.

The major premise in each argument involves the truth-function “if–>then,” or what’s called material implication. This truth-function has semantic rules (which you can see in a truth-table), which is precisely why you can make the former, but not the latter two inferences below.

Modus Ponens:

If it’s snowing outside, then it’s cold.
It’s snowing outside.
Therefore, it’s cold.

Modus Tollens:

If it’s snowing outside, then it’s cold.
Its not cold.
Therefore, it’s not snowing.

Illicitly denying the antecedent:

If it’s snowing outside, then it’s cold.
It’s not snowing outside.
Therefore, it’s not cold.

Illicitly affirming the consequent:

If it’s snowing outside, then it’s cold.
It’s cold.
Therefore, it’s snowing.

All arguments use the same set of facts, but we can see by the logical structure of the arguments that there are two ways of making incorrect inferences from those facts. And the important feature to notice is that the invalidity comes from the logical form of the argument, not those facts themselves. Take the last one: The inference is clearly invalid, since being cold is a not *a sufficient *reason for concluding that it is snowing, though, being cold is a *necessary *condition for it to be snowing outside. So if it is snowing outside, then it is certainly cold. Though being cold doesn’t logically imply it is snowing.

So far, all you’ve offered is a philosophical snow job. Surely, your advanced education suggests that you can accomplish a straightforward explanation.

Don’t ask me to do that again. If you think there is something wrong with these two correct rules of inference above, then the burden of proof is on you to logically demonstrate that error. And I expect to see clearly articulated results, otherwise you’re just trying to pull a philosophical, but nonsensical snowjob.

So far you are way too pretentious for your own good, and you treat these discussions as if they involved a demonstration of intellectual showmanship. But you only have a bachelor’s degree in science, so you might want to stop flying too close to the sun because you’re eventually going to get burned by someone smarter than you. I guarantee it.

 

[Syntax]

they dont, you just dont know the difference. but now that you are being exposed to the philosophy of science, and see it has limits you didnt consider, youre getting in a huff.

so slow your roll, and suppose that you arent the only person on the planet who has a clue.

You said it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But you only have a bachelor’s degree in science, so you might want to stop flying too close to the sun because you’re eventually going to get burned by someone smarter than you. I guarantee it.

what do you mean eventually? im pretty sure it just happened.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

what do you mean eventually? im pretty sure it just happened.

 

[AlbertBall]

Sure, but the problem is that they are still only surveys of the issues with which scientists deal, not an in depth look. So you’re not exactly going to acquire a deeper understanding of the actual issues facing scientific methodologies in principle.

Then got to university, i feel like i am being bombarded by ignoramuses. I just do not have time to answer you all. Not until the end of term anyway .

---- edit.

I see you have been. So you can ignore the above, i only have one question for you. How have you verified your religious beliefs?

 

[AlbertBall]

I’m fairly certain an internet forum is not at this level of dialogue. I think bringing in visual media can help clarify a person’s argument, if used well.

Exactly.